Go to page

"Puranas" in Sanskrit means "history", and the Puranas give the history of ancient India.

The Puranas accurately describe the genealogy of kings after Chandragupta Maurya's time, since it is corroborated with other sources. The Puranas also give a genealogy of kings and their dynasties before Chandragupta going back to Parikshit and Yudhishtira of the Mahabharata war, which is calculated to around 3000 BC.

The Aryan migration from India is consistent with the recorded history in the Puranas and Vedas of India. The Vedas and Puranas do not mention any Aryan invasion.

"Puranas" in Sanskrit means "history", and the Puranas give the history of ancient India.

The Puranas accurately describe the genealogy of kings after Chandragupta Maurya's time, since it is corroborated with other sources. The Puranas also give a genealogy of kings and their dynasties before Chandragupta going back to Parikshit and Yudhishtira of the Mahabharata war, which is calculated to around 3000 BC.

The Aryan migration from India is consistent with the recorded history in the Puranas and Vedas of India. The Vedas and Puranas do not mention any Aryan invasion.

"Puranas" in Sanskrit means "history", and the Puranas give the history of ancient India.

The Puranas accurately describe the genealogy of kings after Chandragupta Maurya's time, since it is corroborated with other sources. The Puranas also give a genealogy of kings and their dynasties before Chandragupta going back to Parikshit and Yudhishtira of the Mahabharata war, which is calculated to around 3000 BC.

The Aryan migration from India is consistent with the recorded history in the Puranas and Vedas of India. The Vedas and Puranas do not mention any Aryan invasion.

Well, no Indo-European dynasty outside of South Asia claimed descent from Indians, so by the same logic, the "Out of India Theory" of an Indo-European homeland in India is also refuted, which brings us back to square one.

Well, no Indo-European dynasty outside of South Asia claimed descent from Indians, so by the same logic, the "Out of India Theory" of an Indo-European homeland in India is also refuted, which brings us back to square one.

"....the first of the countries created by Ahura Mazda, [called] Airyana Vaējah: ......The order goes roughly from north to south and then towards the east: Sogdiana (Gava), Margiana (Mourv), Bactria (Bāxδī), Nisaya between Margiana and Bactria, Areia (Harōiva), Kābulistān (Vaēkərəta), the Gaznī region (Urvā), Xnənta, Arachosia (Haraxvaitī), Drangiana (Haētumant), a territory between Zamin-dāvar and Qal'at-i-Gilzay (Raγa), the Lūgar valley (Caxra), Bunēr (Varəna), Pañjāb (Hapta Həndu), Raƞhā … between the Kābul and the Kurram, in the region where it seems likely the Vedic river Rasā flowed"

Yes, they were familiar with Panjab and NW India because Iranians were located right next to Panjab and NW India. But the point is that no Iranian genealogy or history says that Iranians were descendants of migrants or invaders from India. So if the absence of any mention of external Aryan invasion/migration in Puranas and other Indian texts is used to "refute" the Aryan invasion theory, then the absence of any mention of Indian invasion/migration in any Iranian text can be also be used to refute the "Out-of-India theory."

The Iranians called themselves "Aryans" because they were related to the Indo-Aryans. In particular, the Avestan language is very close to Vedic language, and they must have both shared a common ancestor. The shared usage of "Arya(n)" by Iranians and Indians is due to that shared common ancestor, not because Indians invaded or migrated into Iran (or vice versa).

Yes, they were familiar with Panjab and NW India because Iranians were located right next to Panjab and NW India. But the point is that no Iranian genealogy or history says that Iranians were descendants of migrants or invaders from India. So if the absence of any mention of external Aryan invasion/migration in Puranas and other Indian texts is used to "refute" the Aryan invasion theory, then the absence of any mention of Indian invasion/migration in any Iranian text can be also be used to refute the "Out-of-India theory."

The Iranians called themselves "Aryans" because they were related to the Indo-Aryans. In particular, the Avestan language is very close to Vedic language, and they must have both shared a common ancestor. The shared usage of "Arya(n)" by Iranians and Indians is due to that shared common ancestor, not because Indians invaded or migrated into Iran (or vice versa).

Yes, correct, the Indo-Iranian civilization was one, until the later split.

The Iranians also don't say they came from Ukraine.

You are correct, they did have a common ancestor. One example is Achaemenid emperor "Cyrus", which is a Hellenized form of "Kuru". "Kuru" is the ancestor of the Kaurvas, one of the royal families that fought in the Kurukshetra war (Mahabharata).

Well, the Iranian people was a large family of tribes in ancient times, and they did not inhabit only the lands of the country presently called Iran.

Many of them indeed lived in parts of eastern & southeastern Europe. The Ossetians of today's Georgia, for example, are descendants of the Alans, who were an Indo-Iranian tribe.

And if one looks at these two maps of Scythia & Ukraine below ...

..., then one can see that the locations of ancient Scythia & today's Ukraine are almost identical, and the Scythians are accepted by many as an Indo-Iranian tribe, or confederation of tribes, as far as I understand it.

So, wud look to me like it was the Himalayan Shaka who ultimately came from the Ukrainian steppe regions, rather than the Ukrainian Scythians who ultimately came from the Himalayas. Although one can't still rule out, I suppose, the possibility of a proto-Scythian people originating from yet somewhere else & then branching out in multiple directions simultaneously.

You are correct, they did have a common ancestor. One example is Achaemenid emperor "Cyrus", which is a Hellenized form of "Kuru". "Kuru" is the ancestor of the Kaurvas, one of the royal families that fought in the Kurukshetra war (Mahabharata).

"....the first of the countries created by Ahura Mazda, [called] Airyana Vaējah: ......The order goes roughly from north to south and then towards the east: Sogdiana (Gava), Margiana (Mourv), Bactria (Bāxδī), Nisaya between Margiana and Bactria, Areia (Harōiva), Kābulistān (Vaēkərəta), the Gaznī region (Urvā), Xnənta, Arachosia (Haraxvaitī), Drangiana (Haētumant), a territory between Zamin-dāvar and Qal'at-i-Gilzay (Raγa), the Lūgar valley (Caxra), Bunēr (Varəna), Pañjāb (Hapta Həndu), Raƞhā … between the Kābul and the Kurram*, in the region where it seems likely the Vedic river Rasā flowed"

Raƞhā is not between Kabul and Kurram but in the Zhob (Yavyavati) valley and is known tody as Raghza in Pakistan. However, the Vendidad, a late book it may be, but it shows the movement from North to South and not an Aryan migration out of India. (I do not know how many times I will have to repeat that)

Going by the Vendidad description, I have maintained that Zoroaster's people were in India and returned to Bactria because of heat and fever in Punjab. Of course, Kurus hailed from the area between Caspian Sea and Aral Sea (Uttara Kuru - http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bahr-e-karazm).

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.